[Debate] What is ego-death?

[max_freakout]

Many historians simply believe that Jesus was a guy that was killed.

There is no good reason to believe that Jesus was a single historical person, which leaves open the possibility of the ego-death allegory interpretation of the Jesus stories.

 

[Solipsis]

Having an ego-death experience is not necessarily religious, it has religious implications i.e. it raises questions that may very well lead someone to question more parts about their life and about reality and nature than they previously questioned.

That might seem like a trivial and subtle difference, while it is kind of subtle it is also an important difference.

I personally don't think the connotations and jumping to conclusions from rebirth experiences are in place, I am not asking anyone to believe that there is anything true or real about such an experience (I wouldn't really know what that would mean anyway!), just that it feels as if though you die and then start living again, which is as it happens a pretty particular way to feel. To stop existing and start existing again. It is subjective and it can just be called a psychedelic effect for all I care.
Therefore there is nothing religious or supernatural about it and I don't see what the big deal is accepting that such effects exist.

On an overdose of cannabis it is quite typical apparently to feel as though you are dying. You can label that 'fear of dying' or when you have seen that effect progress beyond that stage it can also be called the sense of self falling apart, having continuity problems etc.

I think many connotations Ismene is rejecting are put there by himself or maybe others than me in this discussion who I am not speaking for.

What I will say is that you probably don't understand a whole lot at all about something like Zen-Buddhism. It is not a belief-system but if practiced 'cleanly' more like a non-belief system. Yes there are rituals before and after one starts sitting to meditate but those are not meant to make you believe anything, they are rather meant to allow you to do things like drink tea without confusion or chaotic attention but predictability, calm and peace.

Whatever happens during meditation is left up to own interpretation, if there is even much to interpret. So I don't understand how that could be considered a belief system. Sometimes there are 'lessons' to be learned but the message from those is typically self-undermining and anti-authoritive: they are often meant to show that there are not fixed beliefs one should follow. So it is the opposite of many religions on that sense.
I will acknowledge that there are also ideas and beliefs existent in parts of Buddhistic teachings, but Zen tends to be kept clear of that.

I have been in retreat sessions where a lot of the time is spent meditating and I have felt many effects I have also had after having taking LSD. That is what I was saying earlier. The meditation can on the long term feel psychedelic, not the Buddhism.

I am a skeptical person and most of the things I am trying to show you exist are subjective effects: they are just things that seem to happen in the experience of people. So I don't think there are beliefs or belief systems I am forcing on you, and I don't think you are really in a position to reject anything of it since it was not presented as objective fact to begin with.

To a hammer, everything is a nail.

That would explain the cross...

 

[swilow]

^Good post I don't know a heap about Buddhism but I attend a weekly meditation and Q & A at a surprisingly modern temple near my mothers house and find a lot to relate to in it. Past experience with some occult practise has taught me the power of ritual for setting up a MIND-STATE which is usually a suspension of normal methods of parsing and relating to information. The Buddhist technique strikes me as infinitely more productive then the hushed and fearful silence of catholic mass, at least in terms of setting up a means to experience an altered mind state.

It comes down to the same ole thing though- if you believe a thing, that thing, to you, exists...(hammer/nail)

There is no good reason to believe that Jesus was a single historical person, which leaves open the possibility of the ego-death allegory interpretation of the Jesus stories.

How so? If Jesus was actually many people, how does that make the ego-death claim any more veracious or likely?

Its a turn-off for me, claiming connection between the Abrahamic religions and psychedelics. I see so much destruction in those belief systems, so much denial of freedom, that I just cannot believe these guys were tripping on the same chemicals with the same brains as I.

 

[max_freakout]

How so? If Jesus was actually many people, how does that make the ego-death claim any more veracious or likely?

You misunderstood what i said, i said nothing about veracity or likelihood. The central issue here is competing explanatory frameworks - ie is Jesus a person or is he a psychedelic freak-out? Also there are other possible hypotheses that have been suggested (such as the astrotheology thesis)

My point is that since the historicist interpretation of Jesus rests on such weak foundations (ie a total lack of any reason to believe that there ever was a 'historical Jesus' besides the contemporary consensus) then this invites alternative explanations (other than historicity) for what the Jesus stories are really referring to. If they dont refer to the life of a single man named Jesus, then what else could they refer to?

And this is where the ego death allegory idea comes in, the centrepiece of all the Jesus stories is the story where he eats holy food then immediately afterwards he experiences agonising death on the cross followed by miraculous ressurection. That story *looks like* (ie it could be interpreted as) an allegorical description of a person eating entheogens then experiencing ego death. But how you choose to interpret the Jesus stories is up to you, you decide what that story means for yourself, which intepretation seems more plausible or satisfying.

The major problem with this kind of discussion is that people generally have a hatred of religion that prevents them from exploring possible alternative interpretations of the religious stories, what would it entail if all religious stories are descriptions of psychedelic experiencing?


""If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."" - Mark 4:23

 

[phuckingnutz]

And this is where the ego death allegory idea comes in, the centrepiece of all the Jesus stories is the story where he eats holy food then immediately afterwards he experiences agonising death on the cross followed by miraculous ressurection. That story *looks like* (ie it could be interpreted as) an allegorical description of a person eating entheogens then experiencing ego death. But how you choose to interpret the Jesus stories is up to you, you decide what that story means for yourself, which intepretation seems more plausible or satisfying.

The major problem with this kind of discussion is that people generally have a hatred of religion that prevents them from exploring possible alternative interpretations of the religious stories, what would it entail if all religious stories are descriptions of psychedelic experiencing?


""If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."" - Mark 4:23

It could also be about a guy who ate some bad pork...was buried and then disappeared. then upon seeing the body gone a bunch of gullible peasants assumed, that the lack of a body meant ascension to heaven when the reality was that the body was dragged off by Jackals and eaten.
Personally ithink religion is just a way to control and conform the masses to keep people from doing what they truly desire...whatever that is...unless, of course, they truly desire to be controlled by a bunch of fucking zealots...then religion is perfect for them.

Oh...and Max, I've never experienced your version of ego death and I am anything but an amateur in the tripping dept...i'd dick-size with you, but you'd be emotionally shattered possibly to the point of never being able to have psychedelic sex again...JMHO.

 

[max_freakout]

Personally ithink religion is just a way to control and conform the masses to keep people from doing what they truly desire...whatever that is...unless, of course, they truly desire to be controlled by a bunch of fucking zealots...then religion is perfect for them.

This is exactly the hatred of religion that i was referring to that prevents people from understanding it.

 

[Ismene]

But Ismene- just because you have not experienced ego-death, does not mean that it doesn't exist! That is the primary logical fallacy that has informed your opinion.

How far do you take this argument tho willow? I've never been a born again christian - do you think I'm likely to experience that? What about those people who collapse unconscious when the vicar lays his healing hands on them? Do you think I'd experience that if a vicar did that to me? I don't.

What about becoming a fervent scientologist? Do you think that's just a matter of "You've not experienced it yet" or more that it's only possible for a certain type of person to experience it?

I don't believe everyone is susceptible to an "ego-death". If max is to be believed it sounds as if it's largely dependent on not being able to handle your high.

I think the bigger logical fallacy here is the idea that "Because I've experienced it that means anyone can".

 

[phuckingnutz]

This is exactly the hatred of religion that i was referring to that prevents people from understanding it.

Well no fucking shit Max...that was my point...anyone with a free and conscious mind would, at worst, only question religious motives and, at best, see them for what they truly are...MIND CONTROL.

 

[Ismene]

If they dont refer to the life of a single man named Jesus, then what else could they refer to?

Have you ever read a book called "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? That should sort out any thoughts you have about "jesus" or any other religion.

 

[Ismene]

What I will say is that you probably don't understand a whole lot at all about something like Zen-Buddhism. It is not a belief-system but if practiced 'cleanly' more like a non-belief system. Yes there are rituals before and after one starts sitting to meditate but those are not meant to make you believe anything, they are rather meant to allow you to do things like drink tea without confusion or chaotic attention but predictability, calm and peace.

Yet if you look at the history of tibetan buddhism you had a brutal feudal system in place where allegedly "peaceful" buddhist monks ruled over the enslaved tibetans through absolute brutality. If you took a goat, the buddhist cut off your hand, then gouged out your eyes. The buddhist law appeared to be "Thou shalt not covet posessions, unless thou takest my goat then I will get medieval on thy ass".

So it appears that, like all religions, buddhism is all in the interpretation. If you're a nice guy living in the west today then you'll interpret buddhism one way, if you're a buddhist monk living 1000 years ago in Tibet then you'll interpret it as meaning you are entitled to live as a slave master.

 

[max_freakout]

Have you ever read a book called "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins?

Yes i have read that, Dawkins believes (just like most people, theist or atheist) that Jesus was a single historical person, and that the stories about Jesus refer to the life of that person.

That should sort out any thoughts you have about "jesus" or any other religion.

Dawkins never even mentions the issue of alternative explanatory hypotheses for the Jesus stories in that book, so he doesnt "sort out" any of my thoughts on the issue, he doesnt address my thoughts about Jesus, instead he just falls at the first hurdle of blindly accepting the orthodox Christian interpretation of the Jesus stories.

On the historical Jesus issue, Dawkins believes the same as orthodox christians do. It is boring and uncontroversial to doubt the existence of God as Dawkins does, but doubting the existence of historical Jesus is an entirely different matter, unfortunately Dawkins doesnt go anywhere near that red hot highly controversial issue.

 

[Ismene]

It's not exactly red-hot max, there's a book written in the late 60s that suggested Jesus was a cover story for mushrooms. It's pretty old news. And it's bollocks old news too.

What does it matter what the basis was for bullshit religious figures anyway?

 

[phuckingnutz]

Max, you seem to be pretty much "up" on your knowledge of religious hooey.
So, one question: Do you believe and follow every teaching in your selected mind control model, or do you pick and choose what to believe and follow?
It's a fair question and if you're honest in answering you will help to confirm my belief that NO-FUCKING-BODY follows anyone else to the letter.
My point being that over the course of thousands of years, the teachings of any of these so-called "Messiahs" gets watered down, changed and bastardized to the point that no-one knows what the real story is so they just believe and follow selectively to suit their own ends/needs.

 

[max_freakout]

It's not exactly red-hot max, there's a book written in the late 60s that suggested Jesus was a cover story for mushrooms. It's pretty old news.

This ^ proves my point about it being "red hot" and controversial/taboo, when you consider what happened to Allegro because of what he wrote in that book. Allegro was publically ridiculed, lost his job and destroyed his career and academic reputation for daring to suggest an alternative to the historicist interpretation of Christian origins. It is highly controversial and taboo to suggest that Jesus wasnt a person, as Allegro discovered. (see this interview with Allegro - www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN-bURgoxPY)

Allegro claimed that Jesus was a mushroom, which is still quite a long way from recognising the altered-state allusions in the Jesus stories. Ie Jesus was a mushroom trip, rather than an actual mushroom.

Also Allegro got the wrong mushroom, he thought it was amanita mushrooms, whereas we all know that the real trippy mushroom is the psilocybe not the amanita.

 

[max_freakout]

Do you believe and follow every teaching in your selected mind control model, or do you pick and choose what to believe and follow?

This ^ is a category error, they arent "teachings", rather they are stories. Do you see the difference between a story and a teaching?

ie the story about Jesus being judged and crucified after he ate the holy meal, that is a story, it isnt a "teaching" that you could "believe and follow"

What i am pointing out is that there are different ways of interpreting those stories besides the standard orthodox historicist interpretation, one of which is the psychedelic ego death allegory interpretation

 

[sinclair1984]

Max, you seem to be pretty much "up" on your knowledge of religious hooey.
So, one question: Do you believe and follow every teaching in your selected mind control model, or do you pick and choose what to believe and follow?
It's a fair question and if you're honest in answering you will help to confirm my belief that NO-FUCKING-BODY follows anyone else to the letter.
My point being that over the course of thousands of years, the teachings of any of these so-called "Messiahs" gets watered down, changed and bastardized to the point that no-one knows what the real story is so they just believe and follow selectively to suit their own ends/needs.

I agree completely. Everyone from prostitutes to popes create their own belief systems to prop up their reality construct, myself included.

 

[sinclair1984]

This ^ is a category error, they arent "teachings", rather they are stories. Do you see the difference between a story and a teaching?

ie the story about Jesus being judged and crucified after he ate the holy meal, that is a story, it isnt a "teaching" that you could "believe and follow"

What i am pointing out is that there are different ways of interpreting those stories besides the standard orthodox historicist interpretation, one of which is the psychedelic ego death allegory interpretation

a question for you. Does it matter if jesus(or Jesus if you prefer) was an actual person, or a mushroom, or a time traveller, etc.?

 

[Solipsis]

Yet if you look at the history of tibetan buddhism you had a brutal feudal system in place where allegedly "peaceful" buddhist monks ruled over the enslaved tibetans through absolute brutality. If you took a goat, the buddhist cut off your hand, then gouged out your eyes. The buddhist law appeared to be "Thou shalt not covet posessions, unless thou takest my goat then I will get medieval on thy ass".

So it appears that, like all religions, buddhism is all in the interpretation. If you're a nice guy living in the west today then you'll interpret buddhism one way, if you're a buddhist monk living 1000 years ago in Tibet then you'll interpret it as meaning you are entitled to live as a slave master.

I know that not all Buddhism is the way I described Zen-Buddhism to be and even with Zen-Buddhism it can be practised in a dogmatic overly disciplined way like they may do a lot in Japan. With any philosophy there are different ways of turning it into practice. Instead of focusing on the point I was making about the fundamentals of zazen (sitting and meditating, nothing more) you are apparently keen on trying to a find a side indirectly related to the topic of discussion that could be attacked.

Seems like an admission of weakness. So many things that can have great positive value could also be abused, but the fact that this abuse happens does not say anything about the intrinsic nature.
Stick to the point.

 

[max_freakout]

a question for you. Does it matter if jesus(or Jesus if you prefer) was an actual person, or a mushroom, or a time traveller, etc.?

i dont understand the question, what do you mean "does it matter?"?

Does anything matter?

 

[phuckingnutz]

I agree completely. Everyone from prostitutes to popes create their own belief systems to prop up their reality construct, myself included.

Yes, that includes me too...but the key words are, "create their own belief systems".
The problem with so many is that they let others create these systems for them.

Max, are you going to answer my question...or is it too pointed?